ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS
|Bigger text (+) | Smaller text (-)
The individual Rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted npon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus." [Emphasis added]
Notice the verdict's confrontational language: "fighting", "combat", and most surprising, "belligerent". Did you ever expect to ever read a Federal Court condemn citizens for being "passive" or "ignorant"? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be "belligerent" IN COURT...?
Better go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system.
Clearly, we must do SOMETHING, for as Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
But apathy ("doing nothing") isn't simply a function of cowardice or indifference; "apathy" is a synonym for "ignorance".
What is it -- apathy or ignorance? "I don't know and I don't care."
Ignorance makes the public more "manageable" in the courts and in confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand its powers at the expense of the citizen's Rights, government has a vested interest in the public's ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest in expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even false, education on what our Rights should be.
If you are a product [victim] of the public school system then consider this, The Department of Education gets what it pays for. ...and you need to 'get yourself smart' -- the sooner the better! This is not a good time for 'dumb-ass'.
Contributed by Richard C. Donaldson and Alfred Adask
Gee, someone say, "contempt"?
Prepare a vigorous pre - charge defense to avoid prosecution.
If an attorney says to wait and see if you are formally charged; walk away immediately; the best time to get a dismissal is before a formal charge.
Many times the best method of winning a false allegation case is to defeat it before it officially starts. Evidence can be collected pre-charge by the defense that does not have to meet the standards of admissible evidence at trial. The defense can produce typically inadmissible evidence such as polygraph examination results, character letters, and other forms of hearsay. The defense can also offer expert witness reports and affidavits explaining the unreliability and tainted evidence procured by the prosecution. Here are some common examples of evidence that can be assessed for a charge dismissal packet:
If your attorney insists that pursuing a pre-charge defense is a waste of time, fire him/her!
|NOTICE: Richard C. Donaldson, Alfred Adask or others presented are affiliated with Freedom School.|
silence gives consent
Silencing Lawyers ... (or, the only way to handle a snake is by first putting a stick in its mouth.)
The testimony most dangerous to your case is the un-sworn statements made by lawyers who lack competence to state facts about which they have no personal knowledge.
No one should be allowed to testify to matters beyond that person's personal knowledge. Such persons are said to lack "competence" to testify, and an objection should be made immediately whenever such testimony is attempted.
Moreover, unless the person testifying is sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then no testimony whatever should be permitted ... and you must object immediately!
Lawyers are no exception.
Yet it happens all the time, and good people lose their lawsuits because lawyers on the other side were allowed to tell the court what happened, what it looked like, who said what, and too many other destructive things to list here.
Opposition attorney, "Well your honor, this is a bla, bla, bla, ..."
Silence the lawyers by objecting immediately! "Excuse me, do you have any first-hand knowledge to offer this court?" "Are you willing to restate that under oath?" "Sounds like testimony to me."
Lawyers should never be permitted to testify. Instead they should be required to present their evidence by presentation of authenticated documents and upon the testimony of witnesses who have first hand knowledge and are sworn to tell the truth!
"Excuse me, where is your competent fact witness?"
Instead of asking questions of witnesses (who are competent to testify) to get the facts into evidence properly, most lawyers just open their un-sworn mouths (some might say lieing mouths) and being to tell the story that favors their client ... even though everything they say is hearsay, since they were not present when the events occurred. They lack competence to testify ... and you must object immediately!
"Excuse me, is this court going to allow Mr. Attorney to offer unsworn testimony?"
It happens all the time!
Be on guard for it. Be prepared to object!
When a lawyer begins to state facts outside his own personal knowledge ... facts he learned from his clients or third persons ... facts he lacks competence to testify about in court ... object at once! It isn't right or proper and it is highly prejudical to the matter and against you!
Yet, you'll find this sort of unfair manipulation of facts in nearly every case you come across. If a lawyer cannot find tangible items or witnesses to offer as evidence in support of his case, he will frequently attempt to get the evidence in anyway by stating facts about which he has no first-hand knowledge ... detailing the content of documents that aren't available, telling the court what was said by someone who isn't present for cross-examination, or describing a scene or the actions and behavior of people he never met.
To multiply this unlawful exploitation of due process, most lawyers are adept at using the English language forcefully, illustrating their points with word-power most lay persons lack. It doesn't matter that they are members of The Bar. It doesn't matter that they finished law school, passed the bar, and enjoy a certain degree of prestige as they strut about the courtroom in expensive clothing and highly-polished shoes. If they do not have first-hand knowledge of facts they offer to the court, they lack competence, and a timely objection is essential.
Otherwise (if you allow them to do so) they will present damaging evidence in a light that dishonestly influences the court against you. They will present facts about which they have only the knowledge they've learned from others (i.e., no first-hand knowledge of their own), and you will unnecessarily run the risk of losing as a direct result if you don't object and put a stop to it immediately!
"Excuse me, who does he think he is, what is going on here?" "Why is he being allowed to testify?"
You must silence the lawyers ... or run the risk of allowing the court to consider the lawyer's testimony as admissible evidence. It isn't admissible! No. Not by a long shot! The rules forbid it.
Lawyers lack competence to testify! It is a corrupt practice. You must stop it before it begins.
Statements of counsel in their briefs or arguments are not sufficient for the purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. TRINSEY v PAGLIARO, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647
A particular aspect of this abusive practice needs mentioning to help you control the inevitable. The rules of professional conduct that govern lawyers (every state has them) limit the ability of a lawyer to be both witness and counsel for his client. One may serve as lawyer for a client or a witness for the client ... not both. If a lawyer insists on offering testimony and the court allows it over your objection, you should move the court for an order finding that the lawyer is a witness for the opposition. Either the lawyer is a lawyer and plays the strictly limited part of a lawyer, or the lawyer is a witness and can no longer play the part of lawyer! If the court rules that a lawyer is a witness, then move the court to disqualify him to testify pursuant to the state bar's rules of professional conduct (which, of course, you will have already read and be prepared to cite by scripture and verse). If a lawyer insists on offering testimony and the court allows it over your objection and will not disqualify the lawyer, move the court to order the lawyer to take the oath and submit to your cross-examination. Anyone offered as a witness must submit to be cross-examined by the other side under oath! It is no different if the person testifying is the other side's lawyer!
Object! And if the judge overrules your objection or refuses to rule on it, be sure to renew your objection before the court takes any action that would cement the damage. Make your record.
Take no prisoners!
Otherwise, unwanted evidence will come in without a competent witness and you will be further injured in your cause by inability to cross-examine the "lawyer-witness". If the judge allows it, object. If the judge will not order the lawyer to submit to cross-examination, object. And, every time the lawyer offers facts as a "witness", object! And, when appropriate, renew your objection before the court enters any rulings that rely on the incompetent testimony.
When a lawyer begins to state facts outside his own personal knowledge, "Well, apparently Mr. Doe believes that bla, bla, bla, ..."
"Excuse me, do you think or feel you represent me in any way -- you don't. You're fired!"
Remember: Your right to rely on the rules was bought with the lives of men and women who died to protect and preserve your ability to require every officer and agent of our government to obey the rules of the law like everyone else. Lawyers and judges are no exception!
Consider: If Attorneys belong to a state bar which is a corporate monopoly are they and it subject to the various Anti Trust Acts?
"Equality under the law is paramount and mandatory by Law."
"Refusal for Cause without Dishonor - pursuant to U.C.C. §3-501."
John Henry Doe, Sui Juris
x day of the Month of xxxx, 20xx
[name and address, as showing, of government employee sending letter]
Re: Documents Dated: Month xx, xxxx
Enclosed please find your (firmly attached) four (4) documents (UCC paper items).
These paper items are in good faith "Refused For Cause Without Dishonor" and timely returned to you, pursuant to the UCC §3-501, for the following reasons, including but not exclusive to wit:
1) The name "Mr. JOHN HENRY DOE" is not the correct spelling of my Christian appellation (name) and therefore is a misnomer not recognized by me, myself; and
Further, the peaceful, competent man John Henry Doe has not waived and will not waive subject matter or persona jurisdiction.
John Henry Doe has and will always demand all of his God-given unalienable rights and liberties, waiving none at any time for any reason, including but not limited to his unalienable right to time and the right to "be let alone."
Without Prejudice pursuant to UCC §1-308.
|NOTICE: Information presented is not legal advice.|
Belligerent Claimant (different)
PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIREWhen you look around the web, you'll find a public servant questionnaire, but not like this one. I converted it to a single page so you can get a multi-part NCR form made up at Kinkos, Staples, Office Depot, etc.. Keep some by the door to your house and in your glove compartment to give to [any] law enforcement officers who want to ask you questions. Before answering theirs, I can make them answer mine. You'll find supporting law in 5 U.S.C. 552a. By Bob Hurt
|NOTICE: Entities presented are not affiliated with Freedom School. Information NOT intended as legal advice.|
Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for those men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance.
Freedom School is a free speech site and operation as there is no charge for things presented
this site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
Presentation Copyright© 2007, 2010
All Rights Reserved
H O M E